Mexican-American War - 1846
I recently had the opportunity to contribute to an article on the Mexican American War, one that became the basis of a fascinating quiz. You can check it out at: http://www.mysanantonio.com/salife/stories/MYSA051606.01P.mxwar.1162a2d9.html
As you review the answers, you'll note that a fair number of them (but not all, by any means) seem to reflect current Mexican sensibilities - a few of these are worth noting:
1. This war was not triggered solely by the US, though Polk was eager for a variety of reasons to launch the war. Among other factors, Santa Anna was still smarting over Texas independence, and was loathe to admit that the border between Texas and Mexico might be at the Rio Grande, rather than farther north. The article maintains that there was no justification for the Rio Grande border, but the source who claimed that has clearly not studied the war of Texas Independence, which included battles along the Rio Grande (and below). The land was sparsely settled by both sides, and ownership was clearly open to debate.
2. Despite what one source - Sister Maria Eva Flores, director of the Mexican American Studies Center at Our Lake of the Lake University - said in the article, Mexican nationals of Spanish descent were not dispossessed of their land by the outcome of the war. The US had a long tradition (dating from the Louisiana Purchase and the aquisition of Florida from Spain) of honoring land grants made prior to the US acquisition of new territory, and this tradition (and law) was honored both by Texas (when it won independence from Mexico - and freedom from Santa Anna's dictatorship) and by the US after the Mexican-American war. Many of those Spanish landowners (and their families) went on to become wealthy and politically-powerful leaders of society in Texas, in California and elsewhere in former Mexican territory. I am sure that some felt that they'd "lost their country;" however, at that time, Mexico had held independence for barely two decades, and the country (as a country) was still in flux - still in the process of coming together as a nation-state. There was relatively little of what we'd now consider "nationalism" - and a great deal of prejudice and racism ("Spanish" settlers often felt they had more in common with European-Americans than with Indio and Mestiso citizens of Mexico).
3. This war was, to a great degree, about slavery and the Cotton South. The Deep South was painfully aware that, as the number of free states increased, they ran the risk of being out-voted in the U.S. Senate - and they saw the Senate as the bulwark which protected their "peculiar institution." To Southerners (and President Polk was from Tennessee - General Winfield Scott was a Virginian and General Zachary Taylor was a slave-holder from Louisiana), conquest south was a way of ensuring the survival of the Southern Slavocracy. There were other reasons, to be sure, but that was an important reason for the war.
4. California was less of a reason than the article suggested. California was largely settled by US citizens, and had already begun making moves toward becoming - as Texas had done - an independent country, free of Mexican overlordship. Polk knew this - and while some (mostly Hispanic) revisionist historians contend that the war was really about the take-over of the port of San Francisco, I am convinced that the war was really about Texas and the vast expanse of land between Texas and California - terrtory South and West of the Louisiana Purchase, land that included New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and Utah. Some (primarily Southerners) wanted to annex some or all of Mexico below the Rio Grande (General Scott proposed taking it all), but cooler and wiser heads prevailed.
5. The article is right that the US bought the lands it took over. What the article doesn't mention is that Santa Anna - cash-strapped and greedy as ever - actually initiated at least one of the purchases (the Gadsden Purchase, which added to Arizona's southern-most territories), concluded in 1853. He came to us with the offer; and, when the Mexican War was finished, he was no "reluctant virgin" at the negotiating table - he drove a hard bargain for the lands the US acquired, and got top dollar for those lands, and he worked hard to keep the US at the bargaining table until he'd sold off what he considered worthless Indian lands, uninhabitable by whites - which is how most educated people in 1848 viewed most of New Mexico and virtually all of Arizona, Nevada and Utah.
6. The article implies that President Grant called the war unjust late in life - that he did, but he also called it unjust DURING the war, and for the rest of his life. A patriot and soldier, he did his duty in that war (heroically, winning medals for personal bravery), but he had his own views about the justice of that war. In this he was joined by others - including a young Robert E. Lee (chief engineering officer to General Scott) and others who went on to become generals on both sides in the civil war. In fact, as the article pointed out correctly, most generals on both sides earned their combat spurs in the Mexican American war.
All in all, a fascinating article/quiz, throwing light on a little-known aspect of American history - one that, with our current border problems, is apparently becoming more relevant than it's been for the past 150 years.
As you review the answers, you'll note that a fair number of them (but not all, by any means) seem to reflect current Mexican sensibilities - a few of these are worth noting:
1. This war was not triggered solely by the US, though Polk was eager for a variety of reasons to launch the war. Among other factors, Santa Anna was still smarting over Texas independence, and was loathe to admit that the border between Texas and Mexico might be at the Rio Grande, rather than farther north. The article maintains that there was no justification for the Rio Grande border, but the source who claimed that has clearly not studied the war of Texas Independence, which included battles along the Rio Grande (and below). The land was sparsely settled by both sides, and ownership was clearly open to debate.
2. Despite what one source - Sister Maria Eva Flores, director of the Mexican American Studies Center at Our Lake of the Lake University - said in the article, Mexican nationals of Spanish descent were not dispossessed of their land by the outcome of the war. The US had a long tradition (dating from the Louisiana Purchase and the aquisition of Florida from Spain) of honoring land grants made prior to the US acquisition of new territory, and this tradition (and law) was honored both by Texas (when it won independence from Mexico - and freedom from Santa Anna's dictatorship) and by the US after the Mexican-American war. Many of those Spanish landowners (and their families) went on to become wealthy and politically-powerful leaders of society in Texas, in California and elsewhere in former Mexican territory. I am sure that some felt that they'd "lost their country;" however, at that time, Mexico had held independence for barely two decades, and the country (as a country) was still in flux - still in the process of coming together as a nation-state. There was relatively little of what we'd now consider "nationalism" - and a great deal of prejudice and racism ("Spanish" settlers often felt they had more in common with European-Americans than with Indio and Mestiso citizens of Mexico).
3. This war was, to a great degree, about slavery and the Cotton South. The Deep South was painfully aware that, as the number of free states increased, they ran the risk of being out-voted in the U.S. Senate - and they saw the Senate as the bulwark which protected their "peculiar institution." To Southerners (and President Polk was from Tennessee - General Winfield Scott was a Virginian and General Zachary Taylor was a slave-holder from Louisiana), conquest south was a way of ensuring the survival of the Southern Slavocracy. There were other reasons, to be sure, but that was an important reason for the war.
4. California was less of a reason than the article suggested. California was largely settled by US citizens, and had already begun making moves toward becoming - as Texas had done - an independent country, free of Mexican overlordship. Polk knew this - and while some (mostly Hispanic) revisionist historians contend that the war was really about the take-over of the port of San Francisco, I am convinced that the war was really about Texas and the vast expanse of land between Texas and California - terrtory South and West of the Louisiana Purchase, land that included New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and Utah. Some (primarily Southerners) wanted to annex some or all of Mexico below the Rio Grande (General Scott proposed taking it all), but cooler and wiser heads prevailed.
5. The article is right that the US bought the lands it took over. What the article doesn't mention is that Santa Anna - cash-strapped and greedy as ever - actually initiated at least one of the purchases (the Gadsden Purchase, which added to Arizona's southern-most territories), concluded in 1853. He came to us with the offer; and, when the Mexican War was finished, he was no "reluctant virgin" at the negotiating table - he drove a hard bargain for the lands the US acquired, and got top dollar for those lands, and he worked hard to keep the US at the bargaining table until he'd sold off what he considered worthless Indian lands, uninhabitable by whites - which is how most educated people in 1848 viewed most of New Mexico and virtually all of Arizona, Nevada and Utah.
6. The article implies that President Grant called the war unjust late in life - that he did, but he also called it unjust DURING the war, and for the rest of his life. A patriot and soldier, he did his duty in that war (heroically, winning medals for personal bravery), but he had his own views about the justice of that war. In this he was joined by others - including a young Robert E. Lee (chief engineering officer to General Scott) and others who went on to become generals on both sides in the civil war. In fact, as the article pointed out correctly, most generals on both sides earned their combat spurs in the Mexican American war.
All in all, a fascinating article/quiz, throwing light on a little-known aspect of American history - one that, with our current border problems, is apparently becoming more relevant than it's been for the past 150 years.
posted by Ned Barnett at 11:44 AM
0 comments
